Feasibility and validity of a wearable GPS device for measuring outings after stroke

Annie McCluskey, Louise Ada, Catherine M. Dean, Janine Vargas

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    12 Downloads (Pure)


    Aim. Self-report diaries are a low-cost method of measuring community participation but may be inaccurate, while the "gold standard", observation is time consuming and costly. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and validity of a global positioning system (GPS) for measuring outings after stroke. Design. Cross-sectional cohort study. Methods. Twenty ambulant people with stroke wore a GPS device and kept a diary for 7 days, and 18 were observed for half a day. We recorded recruitment rate, user perceptions, and data extraction time. GPS data were analysed against Google maps. Percent exact agreement (PEA) with observation was calculated for GPS and diary. Results. Of 23 eligible participants, 20 consented (mean 3.6 years after stroke). GPS data recovery was high (87%). Some participants had difficulty operating the on/off switch and reading the small screen. Data extraction took an average of 5 hours per participant. PEA with observation was high for number of outings (GPS 94%; diary 89%) but lower for purpose of outings (GPS 71%; diary 82%). Conclusions. The GPS device and diary were both feasible and valid for measuring outings after stroke. Simultaneous use of GPS and diaries is recommended for comprehensive analysis of outings.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)823180-1-823180-8
    Number of pages8
    JournalISRN rehabilitation
    Publication statusPublished - 2012

    Bibliographical note

    Copyright the Author(s) 2012. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.


    Dive into the research topics of 'Feasibility and validity of a wearable GPS device for measuring outings after stroke'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this